“Somebody’s morality is going to govern us”
That’s true, and has always been so, but we battle that out in legislatures, where the people are represented and have a voice.
The liberals would rather have THEIR morality thrust upon us by the unelected, unaccountable and eternal oligarchs in the courts.
MEMO TO BOORTZ: Robertson WON this PR battle………
Time to head down to Naples, count your money (you earned it) - but STFU.
Neal? the problem with the last two presidential election is that the BASE WAS NOT PRESENT TO VOTE. Why? because of social conservative issues.
Neal you are an idiot.
THINGS I WISH I HAD SAID
True Liberty is not license. Those who think as you, sir, pervert liberty, and destroy the fundamental principles that allow a culture to thrive economically. This is the error of libertarian philosophy.
What libertarianism proposes is moral relativism under the pretense of “non-interference.” However, in the final measure, the result is that guaranteed outcome of any morally ambiguous system, which denies human nature and the transcendent truths that govern all cause and effect relationships. In practice the imagined utopia of the libertarian is identical in its altruistic deception to that of atheistic communism; and the outcome is predictable: the destruction of the individual and the corporate body of humanity we call society.
Libertarians think they may advance the cause of “social liberalism” simultaneously with “fiscal conservatism;” but this duality of purpose is folly, and works diametrically and insidiously against itself. The social plagues induced by such novel philosophies invariably drain the public treasury, render the distinctions of absolute right and wrong to ambiguity, destroy public confidence in justice, and dissolve private wealth.
Human society does not and cannot exist in a moral vacuum. A society that having no absolute standards of conduct defers all decisions to the individual, exercising little or no restraint on behavior, abdicates the single most legitimate purpose of the state: to increase the common good and uphold the moral order. To quote Edmond Burke:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
-— Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
A corrupt society, filled with men of licentious inclinations, cannot maintain its economic stability; or do you suppose the folly of the Roman Republic is worth revisiting in our times? “Give us bread and circuses!”
Economics does not transcend moral absolutes. Economics does not trump the Natural Law. History proves conclusively that no immoral or amoral culture can long prosper, nor survive its growing litany of perversions against the Natural Law; for such a corrupt body becomes its own undoing. Unfettered liberty generates unfettered vice.
Vice is not virtue; even if for a time libertarianism may advance a nation’s economic standing, it remains a foundation of sand because it denies the absolute transcendent truth indelibly stamped on the consciousness of every man by He who created all things. God is not mocked.
Without a Judaeo-Christian moral background- which presupposes Faith in that area- a pure free market is unworkable.And in this respect, the Christian part of that formula is entirely derivative of the Judeao portion. Other cultures are characterized by family centrism. No one outside the family can be trusted to do what he says he will do. Contracts are viable only insofar as one party has sufficient muscle to intimidate the other party into living up to his end.
Boortz actually said that if the Republicans FOCUS on the moral issues during the upcoming elections, they would lose. I believe he’s correct in his assessment. The election needs to be ‘nationalized’ against 0bamacare, while countering it with good free market ideas. That SHOULD be easy, but never underestimate the Rebublican’s ability to screw it all up. In order to win, matters of economics and overall liberty/freedom are what needs to be focused on this year. The liberals use moral issues as a diversion with straw men and false narratives during debates, interviews, and in the media. The Republicns often takes their bait, and step in it nearly every time.
"You can't legislate morality" is one of the great lies of our times. We have been legislating morality for hundreds of years, "Thou shall not murder" "Thou shall not steal" etc...
The GOPe should know that there aren’t enough millionaires to win elections so that the monied crowd can protect their wealth from the Left. When a McCain or a Romney is nominated, the Christian Right stays home and the Democrats win.
Fortunately for the millionaires, they can buy protection from the Big Government mafia by contributing to their campaigns.
Neil misses how social conservatism ties the whole Conservative / Libertarian package together.
Abortion? We’ve slaughtered 30 million plus potential taxpayers. The elderly have no children or grandchildren to take care of them (and pay Social Security for them). Less moral businesses are trying to import cheap labor in the form of illegal aliens. Tax revenues are impacted because there are fewer taxpayers. The military is impacted by fewer bodies from which to recruit.
Marriage? The biggest indicator of future poverty, crime, etc. is the marital status of the parents. Children with a married father and mother do better than children in single parent households. Children with married, heterosexual parents, that is.
The Constitution was written for a “moral people.” If the people are not moral, they cannot be governed by it. I don’t want to live under what is replacing it...
There is something that Libertarians always ask:
HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST US?
I don’t see the Republicrats/Democans doing that!
To lump Libertarians as “liberals”, is of the same mindset that all folks who resemble white folks are ‘all white’, and discount how many Native American half-breeds there might be in the crowd.
Libertarians decry ‘the war on drugs’. Have we won any battles yet? Have we lessened the supply or usage over all these years? NO! But we have made a permanent business out of the police/DEA/FBI ‘find the gopher in the hole’, while pouring how much money iunto that operation.
Now, social issues??? What (*) was “The Great Society”??? How much did that help America, really?? How much of a drainhole of federal money has that created? The Dept. of Educ., initiated by Jimmy Carter. Has THAT done us any better, than when the States had their OWN Education system, and requirements? NO. And how much money has
THAT sucked out of the well? Abortion. It isn’t a woman’s right to choose, because abortions mean death of a living cell/zygote/fetus/baby. It has legitimized the wanton behavior that all religious leaders despise. The federal well pays that, too.
So, in all of this, you can argue social issues, legal issues, constitutional issues, personal rights.
The ‘bottom line’, that drives the family budget, or the budget of a single old man, should bre what drives any and all bantered about issue, because somebody’s get their eyes on somebody’s else’s money, for what that dollar monger wants to do with it. Some folks don’t like the Sunday sermon, they pass the plate. Some folks don’t like what they see on TV, they don’t watch it. But they don’t like what a politician does with their money, sorry folks, it’s already out of your pocket.
Someone told me a long time ago, that what you ‘give’ your money to, what comes out of that ‘thing’, it puts it’s stink on you, too, because you paid for it to exist.
If you have a problem with that statement, it was told to me, in the 1980’s by a traveling preacher named Jesse Duplantis.
In the 2006 election, Boortz advocated punishment of the Republican majority in the house and senate. How was putting Nancy and Harry in charge for ya, Neil? Thought so.
One cannot legislate morality, but one can legislate morally. Unless this nation embraces a common moral code to live by we will always be divided.
I hate to say is, but Sean Hannity, on who’s show he was subbing, has the same disdain for moral issues. Why else would he allow the likes of Boortz to sit in?
Likewise, Rush, Mark Levin, and a few others avoid the issues of homo-fascism like the plague.
The political mortality of the founders WAS libertarian. Jefferson was certainly libertarian in his political morality and his religious views would shock many. Thomas Paine, who helped kick off the revolution with his pamphlet Common Sense, wrote an entire book on Bible contradictions. The first amendment seems to suggest general opposition to an official government morality, too.
If we REALLY want to go back to the founders' ideas about morality, we'd go back to state's rights (or community rights, IMO) and let each community suffer or succeed based on the fitness of its morality, letting God, or Nature, or fate, or Physics, or Divine Providence, or whatever word you prefer, decide the outcome.
Politics is the machinery which advances a worldview. At the moment, the secular humanistic, pragmatic worldview is making great advances.
Yes, you can legislate morality, or the lack thereof.
Our world would look about like it does now, since conservatives haven't had much sway in our say about social issues and fiscal responsibility for a very long time.
We can ignore the innate checks and balances of this world, even use our resources to negate them for a time, but sooner or later the bubble pops and the party ends and our attitude gets adjusted with the pain of our consequences.
That day is coming...
Like Bobby said, “You’re gonna have to serve somebody.”
>> Boortz masquerades as libertarian while in reality being nothing more than a liberal on the moral issues of our time.
The statement implies the libertarian is conservative which is incorrect, but neither is the libertarian necessarily liberal. But I favor the implication of conservatism to which, in my opinion, true libertarianism naturally gravitates.
You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
You might be a rock n' roll addict, prancin' on the stage
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high degree thief
They may call you doctor or they may call you chief
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes you're
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
You may be a state trooper, you might be a young turkv You may be the head of some big TV network
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame
You may be livin' in another country under another name
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes you're
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
You may be a construction worker workin' on a home
You might be livin' in a mansion, you might live in a dome
You might own guns and you might even own tanks
You might be somebody's landlord, you might even own banks
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
Yes you're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride
You may be a city councilman takin' bribes on the side
You may be workin' in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
Yes you're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread
You may be sleepin' on the floor, sleepin' in a king-sized bed
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy
You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray
You may call me anything, no matter what you say
You're still gonna have to serve somebody
Yes you're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody
Published by SPECIAL RIDER MUSIC | posted on Metro Lyrics from MetroLyrics
"Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," notes Bell. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period... When social issues came into the mix... from the 1968 election... the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."
Bell concludes... that American social conservatism began in response to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Thus, it is unsurprising that all of the most significant "social" issues in America today are sexual issues. Abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, and [not] merely because they relate to people's personal lives [but] because they reside deep within the moral realm of our culture.
Whether liberals or libertarians care to admit it, somebody's morality is going to govern us. Libertarians would do well to examine America's history before ranting about the morality of today's [Christian] conservatives. Like our founders, most conservatives today understand well that religion (especially Christianity) is an indispensible tenet of liberty.
(bold emphasis mine)
After all, you can’t spell “Boortz” without “Booz.”